Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Mars task force

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Astronomy/Mars task force and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 3 months

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:23, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Mars' FPR

Mars has been nominated for a featured portal review. Portals are typically reviewed for one week. During this review, editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the portal from featured status. Please leave your comments and help us to return the portal to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, portals may lose its status as featured portals. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Rename discussion at Geyser (Mars)

A rename discussion is underway at Geyser (Mars), proposing that both Geyser (Mars) and Gully (Mars) be renamed Martian Geysers and Martian Gullies, respectively. The discussion could benefit from additional eyes. DanHobley (talk)

merge proposal

list of mountains on Mars by height ==> list of mountains on Mars

discussion

support Should feature the exact same content. Height is an obvious primary aspect to sort this list by. The reason for this distinction on Earth is because we have many different types of Lists of mountains, but on other planets we typically have only one such list, and that's for all the tallest mountains. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
support As with the moon lists, no need for two separate articles. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Arlo James Barnes 11:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mars maps

@Randy Kryn: The maps are against Wikipedia guidelines per WP:NAVDECOR and MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. These maps have been removed from the vast majority of Martian articles for the better part of a year and the content has either been worked into the articles or changed from image maps into a traditional navbox. You are selectively reverting some, but haven't provided any policy reason why these are acceptable and should stay in over the policies and guidelines cited above. You like them, I get that, but there are very clear guidelines around using images as navigational boxes and at no point has anyone other than you objected to their removal. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert all of your edit war tactics, this has been discussed elsewhere or on the talk page of the image itself, you are doing mass changes which you had just discussed on my talk page and accused me of some odd things. This may need an admin or two to stop, I don't know if they will quit or not. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. This isn't an edit war, it's part of a multi-month cleanup process. Most of these articles have been stable without the image maps for months and this was brought up with other editors, including you, prior to the change. I understand you like them, but you haven't put forward a single policy reason why these changes are unacceptable when there's clear policy reasons the changes are unnecessary. I welcome an admin eye on this, again, I'm not just plowing ahead unilaterally and as I mentioned on your talk page, the only reason the project to clean up these maps in the past stalled is because you went on a revert spree without justification beyond liking the maps, which you continue to do here. You've re-reverted multiple times when I've asked you to take it here to a centralized talk page. Your reverts have the effect of leaving a half dozen mars articles in a lurch looking substantially different from the rest because, again, this was mostly done months ago. At no point has any editor other than yourself objected. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone call in a flock of admins on this? This edit war started and continued by Warren is about the navbox which used to look like this] and now changed to Template talk:Features and artificial objects on Mars here before the war and which I'll link instead of reverting a third time (is he trying to get me to 3RR? After an odd accusatory discussion at my talk page, which I thought was over, then the undiscussed removals I'm now concerned they may be trying for an edit war trap. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only objection to these changes over a period of months has been you. I've asked you, repeatedly, to substantiate your desire for the status quo from a policy perspective and the best I've gotten is "I like the maps." With all due respect, I don't need to go through your assent to make changes to articles when I've been careful to notify other editors of the changes and haven't gotten any negative response and most have stood for months. Again, there is very clear guideance in WP:NAVDECOR:

Per MOS:DECOR, images are rarely appropriate in navboxes. Just like colors and styles, they should have a justification to appear.

I have been careful to preserve (and expand) the content from the navbox and move it into an appropriate position on the pages. I'm not just blanking content or getting rid of it without restoring the equivalent content into the articles in a policy-respecting way. Accusing me of edit warring for reverting unexplained vibe-check insistence on keeping accessibility breaking navboxes months after they were raised isn't appropriate.

Following our discussion on your talk page I understood your objections here to be at face value and not just edit warring, so I'd like you to engage without just reverting on masse what has been already done and involved other editors. I have repeatedly involved other editors in discussing these changes and have done so over many months. A vast majority of the changes are already long-term stable at the articles that were affected and today only a couple dozen of several hundred articles were left, and the navbox itself was changed so it could be re-added to the articles in a policy-respecting way without losing the content of the navbox that had existed on the page prior. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After an odd accusatory discussion at my talk page, which I thought was over, then the undiscussed removals I'm now concerned they may be trying for an edit war trap.

I just want to discuss this one directly: I had thought you were stonewalling this process. You made it clear you were not, so it continued. In the past, the cleanup of these articles went along just fine until you started reverting them without discussion, as you did here today. I have been working on this cleanup for about six months, and a log of the progress can be found here. Once it became clear that it was a misunderstanding, I felt it was possible to finish this without it blowing up into a whole thing, which I appear to be wrong about. So again, I would like to ask you to reason your objections to the changes from a policy basis. I'm open to discussing it and being wrong, but so far it's just been policy v vibes. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the history? This navbox has been pretty much the same since around 2012! Are you seriously saying you aren't edit warring? Please change everything back both here and on the pages you've removed it from, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's been the same since 2012 doesn't mean it's there in a useful, navigable, or guideline-respecting form. A template is tricky to change when it's being used on a ton of pages, and that was remedied over the course of several months and then the navbox itself changed to preserve the information in it but respect the formatting used on other navboxes. No information was lost in the process of this editing. You noticed a few of the edits and spree-reverted them, but at that point the overwhelming majority of the Mars articles had been stable with the same changes for months, so you're proposing we leave just a small section with the archaic formatting and leave a broken template, which does result in losing information from those pages.

I reverted your revert and said let's bring it here to talk about it. That isn't edit warring behaviour. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the most active recent admins are @Rosiestep, @Ekabhishek, and @Valereee, if that's acceptable to all involved. Neither Randy nor I violated 3RR, and while I object to the speculative aspersions above I think that they should be officially ignored as somewhat reasonable responses to an equally aspersion-y comment from myself on his talk page. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And some slight background for context on this dispute: A now-banned user slathered all the Mars articles in images to the point of rendering them all an unholy mess. Part of this was the creation of an image template (visible here) which was then placed in the middle of every Mars article and broke the formatting of them as text can't wrap around templates. Since there's guidance not to do this, over several months I (and other editors) have been cleaning up the Mars articles systematically, which finally today resulted in that template not being used on any pages. I swapped the template over to a standard format and started re-adding it to pages so that information wouldn't be lost. Randy likes the templates and objects to these changes, which is of course his right, but since this has been ongoing for months and involving several editors, and Randy hadn't articulated his desire to keep the template beyond liking it and long term stability, I've gone ahead and made the changes. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After trying to read this section, I have zero idea what's going on, sorry! Not an area I have any experience or expertise in. Valereee (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the area expertise isn't as important as just the general nature of discussions around wikipedia policy. But Randy is now accusing me of edit warring and vandalism in edit summaries and this feels like it's going a bit far. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn, I know you know that Wikipedia has a very specific definition of vandalism. If in the unlikely case you do not understand that definition, do not use the term vandalism ever. Either way, please immediately stop accusing a well-intentioned editor you disagree with of vandalism. Valereee (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and am glad you are here Valereee. Maybe I'm wrong about vandalism, but what else do you call it when an editor keeps changing a 13-year-old template to their preferred new navbox by ignoring two reverts and a request to stop and then keeps on reverting to their "I like it" option (why can't they just rename their new navbox?). Please have a close look at this if you have the time, they did this several months ago too. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee Frankly at this point I'd also appreciate if he knocked off the accusations of edit warring considering my immediate response to him challenging my edits was to stop editing, leave a comment that we should take it here, and start this thread. The only reason I didn't let the revert of the template stand per BRD was that it broke a bunch of pages it was previously on, but he's explicitly refused to even read that. This is absurd.

I just went through and fixed the linked places on the template since only three were missing and Randy had reverted three that stuck a navbox in the middle of the page, just to be clear that I'm trying to fix something damaged in the dispute and not just pretend he's not objecting. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"...was to stop editing". Of course you stopped, because you had gotten me to 2RR and refused several requests to return the long-term (2012 or before) template you removed. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you stopped, because you had gotten me to 2RR

No, I stopped because that's what you're meant to do when an editor objects. There was an extenuating circumstance around your revert of the template, which I mentioned here and you've refused to read, but at no point did I keep plowing ahead after you raised an objection and I only just did some more edits now to 1) un-break some pages you accidentally broke with your revert and 2) to complete the self-referential nature of the template's contents, which I had stopped when I thought you were raising valid concerns per WP:BRD and didn't touch again until it was clear that stonewalling would leave those pages and the template in a semi-broken state. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What? "No, I stopped because that's what you're meant to do when an editor objects." I objected and reverted several times, and each revert is also an objection, and you kept reverting to your preferred result until I had to stop because of RR concerns. You seem polite enough in language but not in action. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have repeatedly explained the reason I didn't revert it. It wasn't "No, you're wrong and bad" but "If I do this it will break several pages, let's discuss it first since the only alternative is for me to systematically undo a lot of work and you haven't articulated why you object yet." That isn't unreasonable of me. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't broken any pages since its creation in 2012. Why would it break pages now? It's a very good informative template, and has been for well over a decade. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Randy, when you reverted the changes it moved the navbox template from the bottom of the page with other navboxes into the middle of the page diff. If I had just revert the navbox, then a huge map of mars would have bisected the navboxes at the bottoms of a bunch of pages. At no point did I object to the mere fact that you'd raised an objection, but I did point out that there's a tangle of edits that would require me to undo everything to undo one.

You can say It's a very good informative template but I have raised specific policy concerns around accessibility and the appropriateness of replicating navboxes in image data, which that template was doing. A tautalogical "it's good and should be used" isn't actually participating in a discussion around policy and suitabiltiy, it's just stating your opinion. I'm open to being wrong, and I stopped making new edits that would need to be undone when you objected in case they did need to be undone, but we're thousands of words in now with you not articulating your objections, reading responses to you, or engaging with civility. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Catch-22. I reverted your replacing of the long-term template with a navbox, now you say that I disrupted the pages because you didn't want your navbox changed. A crazy idea: rename your navbox to a name which isn't being already used, and bring back the template which has existed at that name since at least 2012. You may say I'm a dreamer, but hey, I'm not the only one. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking me to mass revert a large number of perfectly reasonable edits, what amounts to a content dispute, because you don't like them. I am not creating something new and replacing the navbox, I'm changing the navbox from one that uses an image to a standard navbox, per WP:NAVDECOR. The information conveyed remains the same, and in fact it was expanded. You are free to disagree, but you're not free to just state "no you're wrong, change it back" and demand that a large number of edits be reverted for zero reason other than preference, and that's without mentioning the aspersions and wikihounding. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What a timewaster. The very good and well-used template has been pretty much steady since 2012. The "banned user" was a long-term user who will seek the six month return. Please see the template as it was before being what yes, I'll term an edit war, and if I change it back again I'll hit 3RR and am concerned about the intent of this user. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you a six month project to clean up Mars articles, being driven by a Martian geoscientist whose primary area of editing interest on Wikipedia is Mars, isn't being driven by some deep ulterior motive. Neither of us wants to hit 3RR, I started this discussion and pinged admins for you as you requested, I don't think it's reasonable to act like I'm not trying to engage in good faith here. And the banned user in question tried, unsuccessfully, to come back. I think that part of the disconnect here is you liking the contributions that explicitly got him CBANned for being low quality. That's fine and all, but it's not really reasonable to expect the community to preserve edits that were determined to be so bad that it in part lead to the editor behind them getting banned. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Randy, if you're going to accuse me of edit warring it would behove you not to spree-revert the edits you don't like mid-discussion. I've stopped reverting your changes except on the core template, as the addition of that in the standard navbox position results in it breaking articles when you change it back to the image.

This is why I made a comment on your talk page that in the past I felt you were being a contrarian (which I was wrong about and apologize for); there is a discussion here with rock solid reasons for those edits being made and you're not articulating the reason for your objection, rather accusing me of edit warring in every single edit summary. I'm leaving those edits alone now until this is resolved, but you're basically the sole objection to this over a six month window with multiple editors involved. Simply stating I'm engaging in an edit war and reverting changes you don't like while not substantively discussing them isn't going to help anyone. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You called some admins in for now, so please give it a rest. You've made me concerned about your intent towards me, per your odd discussion at my talk page, and if the admins look at the long-term template which had been used since 2012, and now changed to something else because you don't like it and if I revert again you may accuse me of 3RR, hopefully this will be settled either by them or maybe you can put up an RfC but not just change it after being reverted. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

now changed to something else because you don't like it

For goodness sake. I've repeatedly involved other editors and given a rock solid policy reason it doesn't belong, and went through the effort to reformat the content so it wouldn't be lost and could still be used on the pages it was present on without creating formatting or accessibility issues. These accusations are unreasonable. I'm not out to "gotcha" at any point and never have been, but you've accused me repeatedly here and in edit summaries of edit warring. I don't know how much more I can possibly engage in good faith without just doing exactly what you want me to. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You took it upon yourself to change a long-term template (since 2012) and now are complaining about it after it was changed back (which you then edit warred, which I'm trying to stop and return the original). Open an RfC if you don't like it but please don't disrupt the topics to such an extent as has been done the last hour or so. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually like you to strike the edit warring and vandalism comments at this point. I've been trying very hard to actually substantively engage you and the best I'm getting is aspersions. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert to the template used since 2012 and then discuss. I've reverted it twice after your bold edit and you've reverted it back to your preference both times. This has been used for 13 years now, so bring it back and start an RfC if you are so inclined. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, repeatedly, the duration it has been stable is not a substantive argument for its continued presence when there are clear and explicit guidelines against the form it had before, and the changes to it were careful to preserve the information in a more policy-respecting manner. Only one editor in a six month window of doing this has objected, and that's you, and still at no point have you explained why you believe the old one should stay outside of how long it was stable. If you want to engage in a discussion about why it should be kept, then this is the appropriate place for it, but rather than any kind of meaningful discussion you've just accused me of vandalism and edit warring. This is inappropriate, and you cannot expect others to ascent to your version of an article after months of work to remedy it without a reason. You may want to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages:

[N]o amount of longevity of some item in an article or other page is sufficient to surmount a conflict with current Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which may have changed since the material was inserted.

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would still like you to strike the vandalism and edit warring accusations. This has gone on long enough and I'm trying quite seriously to take you in good faith, but at this part you're hurling accusations like mad and it's quite enough. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(n.b. this is in response to Randy's edit summaries calling me out repeatedly since the posts here) Randy, I'm not going to revert changes that have been in the works for six months, which involved other editors, and which were careful not to lose information on the page because of your preference when you've neither articulated a specific reason for wanting that version other than preference (which doesn't override the policy concerns) and when it's coupled with accusations of edit warring and vandalism. I have repeatedly asked you to engage with this substantively, I'm not trying to ice you out of this process or ignore you. If you want to be party to this discussion, then you need to join it beyond accusations and ignoring WP:UNCHALLENGED.

Several of your reverts have now malformed the pages on Mars topics by shoving a traditional navbox mid-article, which I'm not touching because you're being so heavy-handed with accusations that I feel accidentally inviting a 3RR violation or providing credence to your accusations of edit warring is going to go poorly for me. Again, this isn't just me editing it and this process has been ongoing for six months and has been documented during the process, but you still see fit to take this as some personal shot at you because I was concerned that you were stonewalling which, respectfully, I really don't feel was an unwarranted concern given your accusations here.

There is also a difference between resisting poorly thought-out changes without solid rationale, and status-quo stonewalling to exert control over a page, even if proposed changes are well-justified. Per the the Editing policy, it is not necessary for any editor to seek "permission" before making good-faith changes.

From WP:UNCHALLENGED, emphasis added. The changes have been articulated in a policy context and care has been taken to preserve the content. I fail to see how you're not stonewalling here considering you're refusing to discuss the template at all. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I mention above, when you change it back to the long-term template (since 2012, please count the ~~days~~ years), which I did twice and now you want to catch me an edit war?, then I'll comment. This is a ridiculous edit war on your part and I'm trying to negotiate the waters here with someone I've lost some trust in (after the discussion at my talk page and then their flurry of subsequent actions). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Randy, let's be clear about a few things.

1) I cannot revert the template without breaking the formatting on pages where it's been added back as a navigational element. The only way I can do that is systematically undoing every edit I've made today, and many going back months.

2) You have not, at any point, explained why you object to the change other than that it was long-term stable, which is not a valid reason reason for me to undo the aforementioned large amount of edits

3) You are constantly casting aspersions accusing me of edit warring and vandalism despite very clearly this not being either, and my immediate response to your reverting was to bring it here for a discussion.

4) You are withholding a striking of your aspersions contingent in getting your way in a content dispute while not articulating why your way is necessary

I am not going to revert this in a way that breaks articles and restores an old version that was not conforming to the policy on the basis of its long term stability and nothing else. At no point have you decided to join this conversation from a policy perspective, but instead are pretending that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is sufficient cover to hurl accusations at a user you take issue with. While I'm not about to ask for sanctions or take you to ANI over the aspersions (seriously, I'm not sure where you got this idea I'm waiting to burn you the second you slip up from, that's never been my MO here), I do think it's worth pointing out that you're asking me to undo a hell of a lot of work from multiple editors while at the same time accusing me of edit warring and vandalizing wikipedia and demanding you get your way as a precondition for honouring WP:CIVIL. This isn't cooperative behaviour, this isn't how Wikipedia articles get written, and if you want your perspectives to be taken seriously and your reverts not to just be ignored as unsubstantiated this isn't how you go about it.

When you objected I completely ceased all editing and raised it here, which leaves me with a slew of semi-fixed articles to address which are being left alone right now for zero reason you've been willing to articulate. I'm not sure what more I can do, here, because you're just demanding I do what you say and accusing me of all kinds of malfeasance for saying "Not without a reason." Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

tltr , when you revert back to the long-term template (since 2012) I'll read your post. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got time to Wikihound me with insults you've got time to engage with what you've referred to as too long to read. Or you can feel free to leave this topic alone if you have no interest in engaging with other editors, it's your call, but WP:STONEWALLing isn't appropriate. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you revert your edit war of something which has existed on Wikipedia since 2012 (or before?) then I'll read you concerns (which we've discussed at length previously). I don't see what I wrote above as an insult but as an accurate representation, which words do you object to and believe are inaccurate? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how Wikipedia works. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here is an editor who wants to create a navbox and for some reason can't give it its own name but insists on overriding an existing long-term image template. Warrenmck, it's a good navbox although needs some tweaking, but please move it to its own name. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]